Local planning: housing element: inventory of land for residential development.
The bill imposes new duties on local agencies, transforming the way housing elements must be drafted and maintained. These agencies must now ensure that at least 20% of units on designated sites are affordable for lower-income households, enhancing accessibility to housing for underserved populations. Additionally, the bill requires local governments to verify the availability of utilities—such as water and sewer systems—before a site can be considered viable for housing development. This could lead to a more standardized approach across California, addressing housing shortages effectively.
Assembly Bill 1397 amends several sections of the Government Code concerning the housing element of local general plans. The bill aims to ensure that local governments have a comprehensive inventory of land available for residential development. It mandates that such inventories include not only suitable land but also those sites with realistic potential for redevelopment during the planning period. The new requirements increase accountability for local agencies, compelling them to demonstrate how their inventory supports housing needs across various income levels.
The general sentiment surrounding AB 1397 appears to be supportive among housing advocates and affordable housing proponents, as it promotes measures to combat the housing crisis in California. However, some local governments express concerns about the additional obligations placed upon them, fearing that such regulations might be burdensome or infringe on local autonomy in urban planning and zoning decisions. This divide indicates a broader tension in state-local relations as they navigate housing and land-use policies.
Notably, contention arises from the bill's imposition of state mandates on local agencies, particularly around how inventory assessments are conducted and what constitutes 'suitable' or 'available' land for residential development. Some critics argue that this centralization of planning oversight may lead to one-size-fits-all solutions that could overlook unique local conditions and needs. Additionally, concerns about the lack of reimbursement for local costs associated with implementing these mandates underpin arguments against the bill, highlighting potential financial burdens on municipalities.